Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner who stated that following his complaint and claim sent by the Respondent, Petitioner had appointed a Surveyor & Loss Assessor to conduct the survey and assess the loss and also find out its causes. The Surveyor in his report dated 04.10.2004, after visiting the site confirmed that the damage had occurred to the fire crackers stored in the premises due to seepage of the water inside the premises from the roof but this occurred because the building was old and not maintained properly. Further, there was fungus formation due to the seepage for long periods for which no action was taken and which remained undetected. Since the damage to the fire crackers was due to seepage and rain water over a period of time and not due to Storm, Hurricane, Typhoon, Cyclone, Tempest, tornado Flood and Inundation as specifically provided in the policy, the claim was rightly repudiated.

Hence, the present revision petition.

Counsel for both parties made oral submissions.

Counsel for Petitioner stated that learned Fora below erred in not strictly interpreting the provisions of the insurance policy which clearly did not cover seepage caused due to heavy rains and specifically included only Storm, Hurricane, Typhoon, Cyclone, Tempest, tornado Flood and Inundation. Further it needs to be noted that the heavy rains which caused the seepage to the old building and spoilt the fire crackers occurred a few days prior to taking of the insurance policy. Therefore, taking into account all these facts and since seepage and dampness in the premises is not covered as a risk under Clause IV of the Policy the claim was rightly repudiated.

In the instant case, seepage causing damage to the fire crackers would be, therefore, covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy since it was a direct result of the flood/inundation caused by the heavy rains. Merely because the word seepage is specifically not mentioned, the claim cannot be repudiated.

We have heard learned counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. The fact that the Respondent had taken a Fire and Special Perils Policy from the Petitioner/Insurance Company is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact and confirmed by the Petitioners Surveyor & Loss Assessor that damage to the fire crackers which have been insured was caused due to seepage of rainwater and dampness following heavy rains in the area around the time when the insurance policy was taken.

As stated earlier, the claim was repudiated on the grounds that seepage was not specifically covered in the policy and further any outcome of inundation or floods would not be covered since in the insurance policy it is clearly stated that loss, destruction or damage directly caused by inter alia, floods, inundation etc. would only be covered. National Commission had occasion to examine this issue in a number of cases including in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Gondamal Hardyal Mal IV(2009) CPJ 165 (NC) and in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.M/s Dani Mourdhwaj Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (R.P.NO.4113/2007 decided on 10.02.2012) wherein it had concluded in respect of an identical insurance policy that floods/inundation also means outpouring of water and on this analogy seepage would be included. Further, the contention of the Counsel for Petitioner that the word directly used in the insurance policy would exclude any outcome of the floor such as seepage has also been dealt with in Bajaj Allianz (supra) wherein this Commission has observed as under: